City of - Transit Link Study

Final Report April 2019 Executive Summary

The Union Station – Queens Quay Transit waterfront, ridership has grown steadily Link Study considered two technologies for as development along the waterfront enhancing the connection between Union has increased. Today, growth in the East Station and Queens Quay: an expanded Bayfront has resulted in the need to continue streetcar loop at Union Station; or, an expanding transit along the eastern waterfront. Automated (APM) using the The existing Union Station streetcar loop existing tunnel replacing the existing streetcar. cannot accommodate the demand from new riders, particularly when transit is added to the As the central node of the Waterfront Transit east. In 2010, an Environmental Assessment Network, the Union Station – Queens Quay (EA) was completed on an expansion of the Transit Link provides the means of connecting streetcar loop at Union Station as a means of Canada’s busiest rail station and Toronto’s providing the infrastructure to serve growing waterfront, with its many residences, demand. employers, and cultural and event amenities. Ensuring the Link meets the needs of a In 2016, City of Toronto Council approved the growing population will allow the successful Waterfront Transit Reset; a comprehensive development of the waterfront to continue, study of the needs and options for serving millions of annual commuter, leisure, implementing improved transit along Toronto’s and tourist trips. waterfront including the connection of the waterfront LRT to Union Station. In early Overall, streetcar was found to be preferable 2018, Council directed staff to find an to APM as a means of connecting Union appropriate and implementable solution for Station and the waterfront due to its the Union Station – Queens Quay Transit advantages for the overall waterfront LRT Link, carefully considering suitable options network and user experience benefits. given the importance of the Link and the costs The conclusion of a preferred technology associated with its renewal and expansion. and development of a preliminary design is an important step in the next phases of Due to the extended length of study of this developing the Waterfront Transit Network in project, transit in the has been Toronto. significantly delayed. Development in the East Bayfront has therefore preceded the Background necessary transit to adequately support it. Currently, flood protection works Since the opening of the Union Station are underway to facilitate further development streetcar loop in 1990 first established a of the east waterfront. higher order transit connection along the

Arup Canada Inc

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Options Development • Increased accessibility from a user experience perspective due to a lack of The direction by Council began the focused transfer to the East Bayfront and Central comparative study of the EA-approved Waterfront; expanded streetcar loop and an alternative option to repurpose the tunnel with an • Strongest amount of flexibility for the future Automated People Mover (APM) through the Waterfront Transit Network implementation Union Station – Queens Quay Link Transit and TTC service planning; and, Study, which was proposed as a potentially • No substantial cost disadvantages. cost-effective alternative.

Various technical studies since the completion Public Consultation of the EA determined that these were the two preferred technologies to carry forward Public consultation also showed that the to preliminary design. The Study has been consulted public overwhelmingly supported led by the City of Toronto with a technical the streetcar option. The APM presented advisory team from the City, TTC, and advantages from a constructability , and contribution from perspective with shorter construction timelines . due to minimal impacts below the rail viaduct at Union Station, but both options are feasible Designs & Costs and construction risks are well-understood because of current construction efforts at Following an options screening process Union Station. and preliminary user experience and transportation assessment, the two preferred Next Steps options identified to carry through design development were (1) a modification of the To proceed with the detailed design and existing streetcar loop at Union Station to construction of a preferred option, the City of accommodate additional streetcars, per the Toronto and partner agencies will require: EA-approved option, or (2) the repurposing of the streetcar tunnel and the introduction • Approval to proceed from City Council and of a new APM connecting Union Station to funds for the next phases of work; streetcar along Queens Quay. • A potential EA Addendum given the refinements to the station configuration and Stations were designed to the latest standards possible relocation of the streetcar portal and integrated with the Union Station retail concourse, with the opportunity for integration east of ; with existing and future developments at • Advancing the design to at least the 30% the north and south ends of the Link. Both stage and updating the cost estimate to the designs had very similar capital and operating AACE-3 or CIQS-C level, fully assessing costs. Notably, the streetcar better serves the risks with construction; East Bayfront and wider waterfront while the APM serves a smaller geographic area with • A review of delivery options with funding more concentrated ridership. partners; and, • An assessment of the impacts to pedestrian Following a comparative evaluation of the circulation and access during construction. two options, streetcar was identified as the preferred option for the following reasons:

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Artist’s depiction of future Queens Quay streetcar station ©DTAH

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Table of Contents

1 Overview and Background 6 1.1 Study Purpose 1.2 Importance and Implications 1.3 Primary Study Area 1.4 Projected Ridership

2 Options Development 10 2.1 Technologies 2.2 Options Considered 2.3 Preliminary Evaluation Framework 2.4 Options Screening 2.5 Preferred Options for Design Development

3 Concept Design & Evaluation 16 3.1 Concept Designs 3.2 Evaluation Process 3.3 Evaluation Outcomes 3.4 Risks

4 Public Consultation 33 4.1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Input 4.2 Public Information Centre Input 4.3 Overall Outcomes

5 Conclusions & Next Steps 36

Appendices Activity along Queens Quay ©Waterfront Toronto 1

Overview & Background Overview & Background

1.1 Study Purpose For these reasons, this transit link does and will serve not only a high volume of riders, The purpose of the Union Station – Queens but those who may be occasional or first-time Quay Link Study (the Study) is to confirm an visitors to the city. To continue supporting appropriate and implementable solution for population and employment as well as a the connection of Union Station to Queens growing tourism sector, the Study carefully Quay and the East Bayfront. The output of the evaluated these unique considerations. Study is intended to inform decisions about next steps in advancing higher order transit 1.3 Primary Study Area to the East Bayfront and other communities that are currently underserved by transit, by The primary study area for this segment of the recommending a preferred technology for the Waterfront Transit Network is the Bay Street link. corridor between Union Station and Queens Quay, and the Queens Quay corridor between 1.2 Importance and Implications York Street and Freeland Street. This is shown in Figure 1. The Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link (USQQL) is a unique transit project in Beyond the study area, consideration was Toronto for a variety of reasons: had over the course of the study for the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal south of Queens Quay • Though it represents a short distance and the wider Waterfront Transit Network, (approximately 550m), the link serves a very owing to the operational impacts in the high volume of riders in a high traffic area of broader network of the USQQL. The Initial the city. Business Case considers the full Waterfront Transit Network. • It is a vital connection to enable the development of the waterfront east and west. The growth and success of the wider Waterfront Transit Network relies on the strength and capacity of the link between the waterfront and Union Station. • The link connects Canada’s busiest multi- modal rail hub with local transit and other transportation services including Billy Bishop Airport. • The link is of importance to travellers of all types, including commuters and all-day riders such as tourists and special event riders. Tourists and special event riders are a unique consideration given the high number of venues in the area including , , and the /Jack Layton Ferry Terminal.

Figure 1: Primary study area

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 7 1.4 Projected Ridership

Ridership in the Bay Street corridor and along Queens Quay is anticipated to grow substantially by 2041. Already, growth has resulted in challenges comfortably accommodating passengers at the existing Union Station loop. The figures to the right show existing versus future transit demand in the Bay Street corridor based on City of Toronto models.

Currently, approximately 1,000 riders use the existing southbound streetcar service, and approximately 1,500 riders use the northbound service, between Union Station and Queens Quay in the AM Peak Hour. Additionally, thousands of walk trips are made along Bay Street and in the PATH network between Union Station and destinations at Queens Quay and Bay Street.

By 2041, transit demand in the corridor is projected to be 4,000 to 8,000 passengers By 2041, transit southbound in the AM peak hour based on demand in the corridor estimates from the City of Toronto GTAv4 is projected to be 4,000 EMME model (Appendix A1). Demand varies to 8,000 passengers based on the technology of the USQQL. southbound in the AM Streetcar was shown by the model to have peak hour lower overall demand (approximately 4,000) but increased ridership continuing to the East Bayfront and Central Waterfront due to the convenience of the connection for medium- and longer-distance trips. APM has higher demand (approximately 8,000) but this demand is highly concentrated on Bay Street, capturing a number of otherwise short-distance walking trips from transit, with fewer riders continuing east or west on the waterfront by streetcar due to the additional transfer introduced between APM and streetcar.

Demand projections assume all funded transit projects including the Relief Line South, and fare integration assumptions. Of note, the GTAv4 EMME model is limited in its ability to assess with a high degree of accuracy the ridership of a small link in a GTA-wide model. As noted by the City of Toronto: Highly nuanced differences in operational characteristics and passenger environments are often difficult to capture in regional models such as GTAModel v4. Overall, however, the trend is clear that significant growth is expected.

8 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 1.5 Policies and Previous Studies previous options date from 2014 to 2017. Technical studies date from 2011 to 2017. There are several policies and plans which The previous iteration of the streetcar loop call for improved public transit in Toronto, the design, produced in 2011, represents a East Bayfront, and the Central Waterfront. In refinement of the EA-approved option upon addition, many previous studies and technical which the latest design is based. reports have been developed for the USQQL. These are: • Previous studies and background files – As a first stage of the project, Arup • City of Toronto Official Plan – The Official conducted a comprehensive review of Plan contains several policy objectives previous studies and background files geared towards reducing auto dependency received from the City of Toronto including: by shifting travel modes towards transit and subsurface utility information (DMOG active transportation. drawings), 2010 East Bayfront Transit Environmental Assessment, previous • Central Waterfront Secondary Plan – The Secondary Plan called for a ‘transit first’ preliminary design drawings for Union approach. This approach was a call to have Station streetcar loop expansion, condition transit precede development such that new survey reports for the existing streetcar developments would be planned and built tunnel, and miscellaneous drawings for with transit already available. This approach proposed and in-construction developments would ensure that people new to the area in the study area. Subsequent work was would be accustomed to using transit from based on the results of this comprehensive day one. review. As a whole, the review of background files • East Bayfront Transit EA – In 2010, does not appear to reveal any constraints City Council approved the East Bayfront in the corridor that would preclude the Transit EA. This EA proposed building construction of either option; however, transit from Union Station to Parliament further detailed analysis is necessary given Street where a temporary loop would be the complexity of the Bay Street corridor in built for turning back streetcars. Ultimately, general. Due to the level of development that when Queens Quay would be extended to has occurred in the Bay Street corridor since Cherry Street and beyond, the loop could the issuance of previous studies and cost be decommissioned. Studies subsequent estimates, the next phases of this project will to the EA assessed a number of alternative require considerable attention to constraints options including the retrofit of the existing that may not have been identified in previous streetcar tunnel with a moving walkway. phases of work and prior study. These include but are not limited to: • Waterfront Transit Reset – In 2018, City Council approved the Waterfront Transit • Constraints imposed by planned and under Network Plan. This included a complete construction developments (e.g. 45/141 Bay streetcar network on the waterfront from Street) and opportunities for integration; Park Lawn in the west to Leslie Barns in • Utilities in the Bay Street right of way and the east. New connections would be made adjacent the Union Station loop, particularly to Dufferin and Broadview with a central Toronto Hydro utilities which supply power terminal and loop at Union Station. Direction to the existing streetcar loop; from Council was, in part, to identify potential cost-saving solutions for the • The rail viaduct below which the Union USQQL which is the subject of the current Station streetcar loop would require studies underway by the City and their expansion; and, partners. • Various planned Metrolinx projects such • Previous cost estimates – Generally, as rail viaduct rehabilitation and teamway previous high-level cost estimates for the upgrades.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 9 Northbound streetcar at ©James Bow Photographer (2014) 2

Options Development

10 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Options Development

2.1 Technologies

Two technologies were considered to serve the USQQL: streetcar, as is the case today, and APM. APM technology is used in multiple short- to medium-distance applications around the world in similar environments and can operate in a wide range of weather conditions. An example of APM technology is the Terminal Link at Toronto’s Pearson Airport (see Figure 2).

2.2 Options Considered Figure 2: Pearson Terminal Link Train Eight options were initially considered during the beginning stages of the Study. These Options were carefully evaluated, and design options were based on the results of the refinement exercises were conducted on numerous previous studies which identified many of the options to ensure a fair and an expanded streetcar loop or APM retrofit of comprehensive assessment of the merits of the streetcar tunnel as the two technologies to each option was well understood. consider during this Study. The eight options (described in Appendix A2) were: 2.3 Preliminary Evaluation Framework

• Streetcar to Union Station with expanded In order to screen preliminary options and streetcar loop (two options considered). arrive at two preferred alternatives for design development, and as a precursor to the final • Below-grade streetcar at Queens Quay evaluation, an evaluation framework was and Bay with APM to Union Station (two developed to assess each option. Criteria options considered). were based on key elements of the City of • Surface streetcar along Queens Quay Toronto’s Rapid Transit Evaluation Framework with APM to Union Station (four options and were refined given the level of detail of considered). the Study and uniqueness of this short but critical connection in Toronto.

Figure 3: Technology comparison

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 11 Overall, the evaluation framework, shown in • There is insufficient space in the Queens Table 1, led to the refinement of the designs Quay right of way to accommodate and allowed the team to respond to the adequately sized and optimally located primary purpose of the Study which was stairs and elevators to access the platforms. to find an appropriate and implementable Barrier-free access (elevators between solution for the USQQL.

Table 1: Preliminary evaluation framework Criterion Method of evaluation User experience • Travel time based on trip type (short-, medium-, or long-distance) • Service reliability due to technology or on-street factors such as traffic and weather • Passenger comfort, convenience, and accessibility Transportation • Impacts to surface transit operations in the study area, e.g. GO buses and TTC operations buses • Impact to local (Queens Quay and Bay area) transit ridership volumes • Impact to network-wide (GTA) transit ridership volumes • Resiliency of the waterfront streetcar network Construction • Risk profile of the overall project (e.g. likelihood of encountering unforeseen risks impacts which could delay construction) • Impacts to pedestrian teamways • Property impacts on Bay Street and Queens Quay • Duration of construction Capital and • Capital expenditures (CapEx) operating costs • Operating expenditures (OpEx)

Initial evaluation also considered urban APM terminus and street) could not be design and aesthetic components of the eight accommodated in the right of way. preliminary options such as the possibility would transfer of maintaining a suitable width along the • A major volume of riders and opportunities for between APM and streetcar at grade, landscaping and urban design treatments presenting risks from a safety perspective suitable for the project’s high profile, high given the likelihood of pedestrians crossing traffic waterfront location. against traffic and impacting the Martin Goodman Trail. 2.4 Options Screening • The transfer would be non weather Much consideration was given to surface streetcar during the initial phases of the Study protected, which would introduce a worse given the potential it may have offered in condition than currently exists for riders from terms of cost savings and aesthetics. Queens Quay Station, which is currently underground and weather protected. Following preliminary user experience and transportation operations assessments which A detailed options screening assessment included pedestrian simulation modelling, describing the challenges associated with surface streetcar options were screened out surface streetcar options is included as for the following reasons: Appendix A3.

12 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 2.5 Preferred Options for Design • The option carried forward was the Development EA-approved portal location east of (see Figure 5), due to the Following the removal of surface streetcar existing approval of this portal location options, two options were selected for design and reduced impacts to properties in the development. These were: study area. • (1) Streetcar to Union Station with • The two APM options with below grade expanded streetcar loop, with portal east streetcar at Queens Quay and Bay were of Yonge Street (per the East Bayfront the same with respect to station design Transit EA) but varied with respect to the location of the new streetcar portal east of Bay • The option carried forward was the Street. EA-approved portal location east of Yonge Street (see Figure 4), due to the existing approval of this portal location In addition, it was also confirmed that: and reduced impacts to properties in the study area. • For the APM option, a double track bypass • The two streetcar options with expanded midway between Union Station and Queens streetcar loop were the same with Quay would not be required to support the respect to station design but varied projected demand forecast, with two larger with respect to the location of the new APM (one in each tunnel) replacing streetcar portal east of Bay Street. four smaller APM trains (two in each tunnel). • (2) Below grade streetcar at Queens • For the streetcar option, two platforms at Quay and Bay with APM to Union Union Station cannot support the projected Station, with portal east of Yonge Street demand forecast and desired operational reliability for the project.

Artist’s depiction of potential future Yonge Street slip infill public realm, showing alternate east portal location ©DTAH

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 13 Figure 4: Preferred streetcar option

2.5.1 Future Portal Considerations Detailed preliminary plans and renders of the alternate portal location are included as A new streetcar portal east of Bay Street Appendix B8. is required for both options. The portal can be located either east of Yonge Street near Freeland Street (as approved in the 2010 East Bayfront Transit EA) or west of Yonge Street. Locating the portal east of Yonge Street would require significant works to the existing Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) at the foot of Yonge Street. Locating the portal west of Yonge Street would not require works to the CSO but would require changes to the Yonge Street slip and would create a new access area for the Westin Harbour Castle property.

The location of the portal, whether east or west of Yonge Street, was deemed not decision relevant given that its location did not impact the selection of a preferred technology to serve the USQQL. Given this, options with the EA-approved portal location were carried forward. Future phases of the project will evaluate the portal location and evaluate potential cost savings.

14 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Figure 5: Preferred APM option

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 15 Artist’s depiction of APM terminal at Union Station ©DTAH 3

Concept Design & Evaluation

16 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Concept Design & Evaluation

The concept design of the two preliminary the amount of demolition, excavation, and options, one streetcar and one APM, was infrastructure replacement. informed by user group meetings and preceding tasks. The primary differentiator of the two technology options is that: The following are key overall assumptions that guided the development of the concept The streetcar option requires designs: • a significant expansion at Union Station with a less • Station designs will adhere to the following significant expansion at Queens Quay design guidelines: Station; while, • TTC station design guidelines • The APM option requires a significant expansion of the existing Queens Quay • Building Code (OBC) Station with a less significant expansion at • Accessibility for Ontarians with Union Station. Disabilities Act (AODA) • City of Toronto PATH guidelines Common features of the two preferred options include the following: • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 130 • The new portal can be located either east or • Level pedestrian track crossings in stations west of Yonge Street, however is assumed are eliminated in favour of pedestrian to be located east of Yonge Street near underpasses below streetcar tracks, Freeland Street. providing access between platforms and • The existing streetcar tunnel connection to the south side of Queens Quay/Ferry from Union Station to Queens Quay Station/ Docks. Ferry Docks would require rehabilitation to • Embedded tracks are used in the portion address conditions. of the streetcar tunnel below Queens Quay • Direct pedestrian connections with for both technology options, allowing a adjacent development in the Bay Street passenger vehicle that has entered the corridor is recommended as a means of streetcar tunnel in error to exit the tunnel strengthening the overall connectivity of the by driving straight through, thereby causing built environment and support a weather minimal disruption to streetcar service. protected travel experience. • Connections between new stations and existing/proposed developments in the Detailed station plans are included as Bay Street corridor are desirable. Where Appendices B1 and B2. new connections are proposed to existing buildings, it is assumed that building owners will be amenable to these new connections and/or the City may require the connections through site plan approval. • Existing station infrastructure (e.g. walls, columns, access stairs, and elevators) will be maintained where possible to reduce

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 17 Plan showing overall extents of the streetcar option.

Figure 4: Plan of streetcar option

18 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 3.1 Streetcar Concept Queens Quay • Platforms are extended north to allow for The streetcar option sees a significant vehicle double berthing. expansion of the streetcar loop at Union • Though track is provided at Queens Quay Station to allow maximum operational for operational flexibility, allowing streetcars flexibility with four independent stops. Any to bypass the Union Station loop. vehicle stopped for unloading or loading can be bypassed by other vehicles entering or exiting the loop. For efficient one-way passenger flow, the east side of the loop may be designated for unloading while the west side of the loop could serve loading functions, given its proximity to Union Station. These and other operational refinements will be considered in subsequent phases of work.

At Queens Quay Station, the existing station is somewhat expanded to increase platform length to allow for vehicle double berthing. This supports operational flexibility and reduces the likelihood of streetcars queueing on the track junction at Queens Quay and Bay Street, which would create delays.

Relative to previous design iterations done by others, the streetcar option has been updated as follows:

Union

• The overall extents of construction at the southeast end of Union Station have been modified so as not to impact the development currently under construction at 45 Bay Street. • Due to NFPA 130 fire and life safety requirements, the level of the Union Station streetcar loop has dropped by at minimum 1.4m to accommodate additional ventilation. • The integration with Union Station has been updated to include escalators and better integrate with existing infrastructure. • The Bremner connection continues to be protected for.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 19 Artist’s depiction of expanded streetcar terminal at Union Station ©DTAH

Artist’s depiction of Queens Quay streetcar station ©DTAH

20 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 • It is not possible for the future Bremner 3.2 APM Concept connection to use the former loop due to the amount of space occupied by the APM The APM option requires a considerable in the former loop area. The future Bremner expansion of Queens Quay Station to permit connection would likely require double- the interchange between APM and streetcar. ended streetcars and a new terminal station At Union Station, the APM repurposes beneath the Scotiabank Arena. This was the existing streetcar loop and provides not fully designed in concept as part of this additional connections to the Union Station study nor was it costed. It would not be an retail concourse and Line 1 subway. Key insignificant addition and further reinforces considerations of the APM option include the the streetcar as the preferred technology. following:

• The APM system in this location would likely be cable-drawn as opposed to self- propelled. Cable-pulled APM systems are cheaper to install and maintain, and are ideal for short distance, medium demand, high frequency applications such as the USQQL. • A mid-point bypass is not required to meet forecasted demand and is excluded from the design to reduce costs. Should demand increase, a mid-point bypass could be added at a later date to double the capacity of the link by increasing the number of vehicles from two to four. • The APM drive wheel would be located at the Union loop, below track level. A control room could be co-located with the drive wheel area, at or below track level. Alternatively, the control room could be located in Queens Quay Station, in combination with maintenance facilities. • An APM maintenance facility is integrated with Queens Quay Station, north of the station, within the right of way. This double- height facility provides access to the underside of vehicles. Above the facility, maintenance hatches in the roadway would allow for vehicle delivery, as well as for vehicle extraction at the end of vehicle service life or for significant maintenance or refurbishment.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 21 Plan showing overall extents of the APM option.

Figure 5: Plan of APM option

22 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Artist’s depiction of APM terminal at Union Station ©DTAH

Artist’s depiction of Queens Quay APM-streetcar interchange station ©DTAH

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 23 3.3 Evaluation Process streetcar option provided faster service. This was due to the lack of transfer required at The two preliminary concept designs were Queens Quay Station. evaluated to determine a single preferred option. This final evaluation was done using Figure 6 illustrates the average travel times the criteria in the preliminary evaluation for one-stop trips in the Bay Street corridor framework, focusing on key differentiating relative to longer-distance trips to Sherbourne criteria. The evaluation focused on: or Spadina.

• User experience; Passenger level of service assessment • Transportation; Pedestrian simulation modelling using • Construction management and MassMotion software was conducted on constructability; and, station areas to assess overall station levels • Costs. of service. The assessment evaluated passenger density and flow in station areas A detailed final evaluation matrix is included to ensure stations were properly designed as Appendix B7. for anticipated passenger demand. Level of service requirements are defined in the TTC 3.3.1 User Experience levels of service for station planning.

At a high level, both options performed Results of the assessment showed that well and would generally provide a better station areas are appropriately sized to meet user experience than existing service due demand with minimal congestion, based on to expanded station areas and increased City of Toronto ridership projections for both accessibility at Union Station and to the Ferry options. All TTC level of service requirements Docks south of Queens Quay. Specific criteria are met. As expected, some congestion is included: experienced at vehicle doorways during boarding or at station exits during alighting, as anticipated. • Travel time • Passenger level of service A detailed passenger level of service • Reliability assessment including MassMotion pedestrian analysis details is included as Appendix B3. • Comfort/convenience • Accessibility Qualitative user experience assessment The qualitative user experience assessment Travel time assessment evaluated passenger comfort, convenience, and accessibility with both options. Ensuring A travel time assessment was conducted that the same level of service is maintained, based on trip type: short-, medium-, or long- or service improves relative to the existing distance. condition, was an important consideration in the preliminary design exercises. The • APM: for short-distance trips, the APM following criteria were included in this option provided faster service. This was assessment: primarily due to a shorter walking distance between Union Station GO platforms or Line • Reliability: headways, maintenance delays 1 subway and the Union APM terminal, and • Streetcar: headway reliability would be faster vehicle travel time in the Bay Street subject to on-street operations, with the tunnel. potential for delays due to factors such • Streetcar: for medium- to long-distance as traffic and weather. The likelihood trips to the East Bayfront, Central of maintenance delays would be no Waterfront, and other waterfront areas, the different than today.

24 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Figure 6: Average travel times for each technology

• APM: headway reliability on the APM • Accessibility: track crossings, vertical system would be unaffected by external transfers, and connection to Jack Layton conditions for trips between Union Ferry Terminal Station and Queens Quay Station; • Streetcar: no level crossings of track however, longer trips which transfer to would be permitted at Queens Quay streetcar would still be subject to any Station, and a new underground reliability issues causes by on-street crossing would be provided between delays. Maintenance delays would platforms and to the Ferry Terminal. be rare, plus the system includes two independent lines which would allow • APM: no level crossings of track would one line to always remain operational. be permitted at Queens Quay Station, and a new underground crossing would • Comfort/convenience: ride quality, be provided between the station and the transfers, weather protection, wayfinding, Ferry Terminal. Vertical transfer would and walking distances be required for passengers transferring • Streetcar: ride quality would be no between APM and eastbound different than today, and no transfer streetcars. would be required for medium- and long-distance trips. Wayfinding would The main differentiator in user experience be straightforward, though walking is in the need to transfer between APM and distances at Union Station would streetcar at Queens Quay Station with the increase relative to today. APM option and the additional wayfinding requirements. This transfer, though AODA • APM: ride quality on the APM system compliant, introduces an inconvenient transfer would be good, but a transfer would for people with limited mobility and/or using be required at Queens Quay Station mobility devices, or for large groups. For this for medium- and long-distance trips. reason, the APM option scores poorer from a Additional wayfinding would be required user experience perspective overall. given the need to transfer. Walking distances would be similar to today at Union Station but walking to transfer User experience evaluation outcomes would be required at Queens Quay Station.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 25 User experience is one of the primary • APM serves a higher volume of riders considerations when assessing any transit overall, but these trips are concentrated project as it has a high impact on ridership, in the Bay Street corridor. Under the APM neighbourhood accessibility, and overall scenario, there are fewer streetcar riders equity. Based on the user experience east and west on Queens Quay. assessment, streetcar is the preliminary preferred option. Table 2 shows the user • Overall network impacts are insignificant experience evaluation summary. under both options.

Table 2: User experience evaluation summary Criterion Streetcar APM Travel time Medium/longer trips to East Bayfront Short, one-stop trips on Bay Street are assessment and Central Waterfront are faster faster Passenger Stations function adequately Stations function adequately level of service assessment Service reliability Subject to on-street delays Higher headway reliability in Bay Street corridor; longer trips also subject to on- street delays Comfort/ Single ride to/from Union Station Additional transfer to/from Union Station convenience/ accessibility Overall Preliminary preferred

3.3.2 Transportation Network flexibility

The transportation assessment evaluates • Streetcar provides an expanded loop at overall impacts to local and network ridership, Union Station, allowing for strong flexibility surface operation conditions, network from a TTC service planning perspective. flexibility, service plans, and resultant vehicle Most trips along the waterfront are to/from headway times under each option. Overall, Union Station. both options have the same surface condition with minimal post-construction impact to • APM does not provide additional network surface operations. Specific criteria included: flexibility and would require looping at Spadina or Parliament (at present, • Ridership, both within the study area and Parliament is proposed as a temporary loop network-wide only). • Network impacts for the Waterfront Transit Network Service plans • Operational flexibility • The operational assessment shows that the same number of streetcars would be Ridership required to serve overall demand on the network under both options, despite lower As concluded in the City of Toronto’s travel ridership along the waterfront streetcar demand modelling (Appendix A1): under the APM option. This is due to the operational efficiencies of the Union Station • Streetcar serves more riders east and streetcar terminal which allows streetcars west on Queens Quay, including to the East to serve the east and west legs of the study Bayfront. area on a shorter circuit, thereby reducing

26 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 the travel time to complete the circuit and Transportation evaluation outcomes the number of vehicles required to meet demand. The transportation assessment provides an important understanding of the overall • Under the streetcar option, the primary impacts to the broader transportation system capacity constraint is the track junction at of both options. Based on the transportation Queens Quay and Bay Street. An analysis assessment, streetcar is the preliminary of the TTC’s Vissim model of the streetcar preferred option. Table 3 shows the loop expansion shows that between 45-55 transportation evaluation summary. vehicles per hour can be accommodated at this junction with minimal delay. This is 3.3.3 Constructability more than the number of vehicles that is required to meet projected demand which is The constructability assessment evaluates estimated to be 29 vehicles. challenges and risks associated with the construction of each option which could impact project timelines. Specific criteria Overall, the streetcar option is preferred due included: to: • Risk profile • Its provision of a central terminal for the east and west waterfront LRT network. • Pedestrian teamway impacts • The service planning assessment which • Property impacts shows that the same number of streetcars • Construction duration estimation can serve higher demand if routes are split east-west, which the loop facilitates. Risk profile

Though both options are viable and provide • Streetcar poses additional risks due the necessary improvements to transit to construction below the rail viaduct. service in the study area, the streetcar option Constructing the expanded streetcar loop presents distinct benefits when assessing will require underpinning the existing rail overall network impacts. From an operational viaduct piers. A similar construction has standpoint, the streetcar option with the recently been done as part of the Union continuous link to Union Station provides a Station Revitalization; however, it does central node that provides greater flexibility come with cost and schedule risks. Noise in route planning and operational efficiency compared to the APM option. and vibration mitigation will be an important consideration, particularly at Union Station, The complete transportation operations given Metrolinx construction tolerances. assessment, included as Appendix B4, • APM poses minimal risks due to limited provides additional detail on the above impacts below the rail viaduct. findings.

Table 3: Transportation evaluation summary Criterion Streetcar APM Ridership Higher ridership along Queens Quay Higher ridership on Bay Street east and west Network Higher flexibility due to new terminal Reduced flexibility due to need to loop at flexibility at Union which supports planned Spadina or Parliament waterfront LRT improvements Service plans 29 streetcars needed to serve demand 29 streetcars needed to serve lower demand, plus APM required on Bay Street corridor Overall Preliminary preferred

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 27 Pedestrian teamway impacts

• Streetcar: construction of the expanded streetcar loop may require temporary closure of one or both of the Bay Street teamways which would result in either: significant additional pedestrian demand within the Bay Street concourse; or, temporary bridge structures to keep the teamways open during construction. • APM would not require closures of the teamways.

Property impacts

• Streetcar: property risks associated with the need to acquire portions of 1 and 141 Bay Street basements to allow for the Union loop streetcar option expansion.

• APM would not require the acquisition Figure 7: Developments underway in the Bay Street corridor include of portions of properties adjacent Union 141 Bay Street/CIBC Square (©Metrolinx/GO Transit) Stations. Construction management and constructability evaluation outcomes Construction duration estimation From a construction management and • Streetcar would require a longer constructability perspective, both options are construction period due to the increased constructible and therefore feasible. The APM risks below the rail viaduct. Construction is provides many advantages due to reduced estimated to take 4-5 years. impacts below the rail viaduct that results in a reduced construction timeframe, making • APM would have a shorter construction it the preliminary preferred option from a period due to minimal impacts below the rail construction perspective. Table 4 shows the viaduct. Construction is estimated to take constructability evaluation summary. 3-4 years.

Table 4: Construction impacts evaluation summary Criterion Streetcar APM Risk profile Risks associated with construction No rail viaduct risks below rail viaduct Pedestrian Closed due to construction and Not impacted by construction teamway pedestrian rerouted impacts Property impacts 1 Front St and 141 Bay St basement No significant impacts impacts Duration 4-5 years 3-4 years estimation

Overall Preliminary preferred

28 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Overall, neither option permits the operation higher range of previous estimates but still of streetcar between Queens Quay and Union within the range previously reported. Station during construction. In both cases, replacement bus service would be required The AACE Class 4 capital cost estimate is between Queens Quay and Union Station for intended to be accurate to within +/- 25%. the duration of the project. The estimate is based on the following assumptions, which apply to both options: Ideally, sequencing would result in Queens Quay reopening before Union Station • Remediation work will be required on the works are completed, with through-track at existing TTC streetcar tunnel. Queens Quay Station permitting service along the waterfront as early as possible. It • At least one traffic lane must remain is recommended that the retrofit of Queens open per direction on all roads during Quay Station be accelerated to the extent construction. If full road closure is permitted, possible and that the through-track for a cost savings would be achieved. streetcar be installed along with surface works • Premium finishes in stations are assumed to an interim loop at Parliament Street. This given that these stations are the gateway to construction sequencing will allow service the waterfront. to continue along Queens Quay without the requirement to terminate at the Spadina loop, • Given the proximity to , allowing east-west trips along the waterfront wet soils, waterproofing, and significant to continue to be served by LRT, and allowing dewatering will be required during a shorter replacement bus service to be construction. A new pump station is operated. assumed to be required beneath Queens Quay Station for both options. 3.3.4 Cost Estimates • Business compensation during construction Cost was an important consideration given and escalation have not been included. that the USQQL has been studied over many • Significant utility relocation and protection, years in an effort to determine whether a both temporary and permanent, will be more cost-effective solution to streetcar loop required. expansion is possible. The Study evaluated capital costs and operating costs as a means of determining whether there were significant Table 5 shows the AACE Class 4 capital cost cost savings that could be realized with the estimates. Note that the APM option does alternate APM technology. not include an incremental increase related to the need to build a new terminal north Capital costs of Scotiabank Arena at the terminus of the potential future Bremner line. This terminus is Previous cost estimates have been prepared required because without the use of the loop, for various design iterations of the USQQL. the Bremner line must terminate near Union These estimates have ranged from between Station independently. This could be a simple $440-$620M (various year dollars) based single platform with connections to the street on Class 5 capital cost estimates. As the and/or Union Station. This would require design has been refined over the course double-ended streetcars which could result of this study, so too has the cost estimate. in small incremental costs. The costs of the The current estimates are based on the Bremner terminus are not captured in these concept designs which have been refined cost estimates. to incorporate the latest NFPA 130 Fire & Life Safety requirements which has resulted in the need for significant additional works at Union Station with the streetcar option to accommodate over track ventilation systems. For this and other reasons, the latest capital cost estimates for both options are at the

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 29 Table 5: AACE Class 4 capital cost estimates Option Base construction cost General requirements, Total (2019$) rounded to labour & materials, fees, nearest $1M contingencies, and engineering costs Streetcar $291,159,000 $320,392,000 $612M

APM $285,434,000 $314,093,000 $600M

Overall, capital cost estimates show that there • Non-vehicle maintenance: the blended is approximately a $12M difference between cost of non-vehicular components such as options, or less than 2%. The difference is track, stop/station, and other infrastructure not substantial, and the result is that neither maintenance costs; and option is preferred from a capital cost perspective. • General admin (“GA”): the blended cost for system operations and maintenance, The complete capital cost estimate is included separate from vehicle-specific figures as Appendix B6. above.

Operating costs The vehicle-dependent components – the VRK and VRH – are generally the operating Operating costs are based on service costs associated with labour costs and assumptions developed during the vehicular maintenance, and as implied by its transportation operations assessment and definition, scale with usage of the vehicles. assume a 5.5% discount rate. The operating and maintenance (“O&M”) costs generally Estimates of the above components are based include the following components: on the operational assessment completed for the Study. In the assessment, the streetcar • Vehicle revenue kilometres (“VRK”): the operating plans (for both streetcar and APM total distance travelled by all the streetcar options) were developed based on the peak vehicles, expressed in vehicle-kilometres; point ridership as provided by the City’s • Vehicle revenue hours (“VRH”): the total demand model. Fleet requirement and service levels were calculated, and then processed hours travelled by all the streetcar vehicles, into VRK and VRH. Table 6 summarizes the expressed in vehicle-hours; O&M costs between the two options which are less than 1% apart. Table 6: O&M costs summary Item Streetcar APM Daily streetcar costs (vehicle) $53,000 $49,000

Daily streetcar costs (non-vehicle) $36,000 $36,000

Annual cost (306 days) $27,309,000 $26,019,000

APM annual O&M Cost -- $2,000,000

Total annual cost $27,309,000 $28,019,000

Present value (60 year) $390,000,000 $400,000,000

30 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Over the 60-year lifecycle of the project, the Next steps APM is somewhat more expensive because both options require the same number of • Cost estimates must be updated with streetcars to serve projected demand, and the refinements to the design at each stage of APM option also requires the operation of the the project: APM system (approximately $2M per year). • 30% schematic design Of note, the operating costs include costs AACE Class 3 estimate of the nine streetcars which already operate • 60% schematic design on the portion of track between Spadina and AACE Class 2 estimate Union Station. To appropriately compare current versus projected operating costs, • 90% schematic design the cost of operating these streetcars may AACE Class 1/tender estimate be subtracted from the operating cost • An additional important consideration which calculations as an understanding of the net may impact construction duration and cost increase over current operating costs. will be the evaluation of teamway closure While not costed, additional operational impacts during construction. Teamways costs may be incurred on the potential future must be closed during construction of the Bremner line under the APM option because streetcar loop expansion, but there may be of the potential need to operate double-ended the opportunity to incorporate a temporary streetcars to serve the Bremner terminus. bridge structure to replace the teamway for These costs could be related to vehicle the duration of construction. The feasibility maintenance (more doors and an additional of this element has not been evaluated. cab) plus reconfiguring existing maintenance facilities to accommodate double-ended cars.

Cost evaluation outcomes

Cost is an important criterion of the overall evaluation as one of the main purposes of the evaluation of alternatives to streetcar loop expansion has been to review more cost-effective options. However, there are no significant cost savings associated with the APM relative to the streetcar option. Slightly lower capital costs for APM are offset by slightly higher annual operating costs. Overall, there is no preliminary preferred option from a cost perspective, given the similarities in both capital and operating costs.

Figure 8: Looking north on the Bay Street corridor showing active GO viaduct and temporary pedestrian infrastructure (©2019 Google)

Table 7: Cost evaluation summary Criterion Streetcar APM Capital costs $612M $600M

Annual operating costs (PV) $27M $28M

Overall No preliminary preferred (less than 2% difference)

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 31 3.4 Summary Evaluation The following are some key risks associated with the deliverability of the USQQL preferred The purpose of the final evaluation was to option: determine a preliminary preferred option to bring forward for recommendation and future • Constructing the expanded streetcar loop design development. The final evaluation will require underpinning the existing rail focused on key differentiators and decision- viaduct piers. A similar construction has relevant criteria. Many factors for future recently been done as part of the Union consideration, such as the location of the Station Revitalization; however, it does portal east of Bay Street, do not impact the come with cost and schedule risks. selection of a preferred technology and were not evaluated with respect to determining a • Construction of the expanded streetcar preferred technology. loop may require temporary closure of one or both of the Bay Street teamways which Both options presented are viable and would would result in either: significant additional provide an increased level of service and pedestrian demand within the Bay Street quality relative to the existing condition. concourse; or, temporary bridge structures However, due to the benefits from a user to keep the teamways open during experience and transportation perspective construction. streetcar is the preliminary preferred option to serve the USQQL. • Property risks associated with the need to acquire portions of 1 Front Street and 141 3.5 Risks Bay Street basements to allow for the Union loop streetcar option expansion. Though streetcar is the preliminary preferred option, it carries additional risk, primarily • There are risks associated with utilities; associated with construction below the rail subsequent phases should include SUE viaduct east of Union Station. As noted level B at minimum to accurately cost utility previously, these are known and accepted relocations. risks that do not preclude the streetcar • Risk in ability to secure capital and ongoing option from being considered the preliminary funding from provincial and/or federal preferred option overall. government sources. • Escalation of costs in subsequent phases of design due to known and unknown risks including those associated with construction of the streetcar loop expansion below the GO rail viaduct south of Union Station.

Figure 9: Construction at Union Station has involved lowering floors which would be required for the USQQL project (©2011 Rick McGinnis/Medium)

32 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Artist’s depiction of potential future Queens Quay streetscape east of Bay Street ©DTAH 4

Public Consultation

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 33 Public Consultation

Public consultation is an important alternative and provided feedback to inform consideration in any large project; particularly final design refinements for the following one that will directly impact residents’ ability Public Information Meeting. The key themes to travel between key destinations in the of this session were: City. Over the course of the Union Station – Queens Quay Transit Link Study, two • Those who provided written and/or verbal Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) input feedback were unanimously supportive of sessions were held to garner feedback from the streetcar option. key members of the community including local landowners, members of the Waterfront • There were no questions or issues raised BIA, transit enthusiasts, and other interest about the evaluation criteria and the metrics groups. Input from the SAC helped inform the used to determine the preferred option. development of options and the dissemination • Most of the questions and comments of details at the Public Information Meeting centered around construction staging: how that followed the SAC meetings. it would be done, what impacts to service The consultation program also included would be, and recommendations from the an online component through updates group on how to best manage this process. to the project website (www.toronto.ca/ waterfronttransit) and emails to the project 4.2 Public Information Centre Input mailing list ([email protected]). The Public Information Centre was held Through these methods of consultation, over on 4 March 2019 and began with an open 100 in-person participants were engaged and house session where members of the public over 50 detailed comment forms and online were able to ask questions of the study responses were received. team, followed by a formal presentation and question & answer session. Afterwards, 4.1 Stakeholder Advisory Committee members of the public were once again able Input to attend the open house where members of the study team remained to respond to any The first SAC meeting was held on 22 final questions. 84 members of the public January 2019 and constituted a workshop attended. The key themes of this session format. Approximately half a dozen members were: of the SAC attended. At this meeting, SAC members were presented with the preliminary • The public comments received showed findings of the study. At this time, no preferred overwhelming support for the streetcar option had been determined. SAC members option, particularly because of efficiency/ provided feedback on their considerations for ease of use, no transfer at Queens determining a preferred option and helped Quay Station, and resulting benefits to inform the final refinements of the evaluation accessibility. process. • Many of the public’s comments were related The second SAC meeting was held on 28 to construction staging; particularly, how February 2019 and involved a presentation the route would be serviced and what followed by a workshop and discussion alternatives would be used during the period. Approximately 15 members of the construction period. Reducing construction SAC attended. At this meeting, SAC members impacts will be an important consideration were presented with the preferred streetcar moving forward.

34 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 • Another common theme was timelines and funding, particularly when the project is expected to start/finish, how a lack of funding would affect the project, and how much of a priority this project is for Council given the number of transit projects planned and underway in the city. • The public felt that the evaluation criteria used to assess the options was logical and clear. • Some design recommendations were put forth by the public including extra accessibility features, art and design elements that reflect the waterfront, and platform screen doors. These may be considerations during the next design phases of the project.

Details of the meeting were advertised in the local newspaper, on Twitter (@CityPlanTO and @CityofToronto), on the project website (www. toronto.ca/waterfronttransit), and emailed to all project list subscribers and stakeholders. However, members of the public noted that outreach could have been stronger, as many were not aware of the meeting until shortly before it was held.

4.3 Overall Outcomes

Feedback from the SAC meetings and Public Information Centre provided valuable insight on means of refining the preliminary designs. The selection of streetcar as the preferred alternative to serve the USQQL was overwhelmingly supported by all respondents of the three above noted meetings held over the course of the Study.

Summaries of the noted public consultations are included as Appendices C1 and C2.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 35 Artist’s depiction of potential future Yonge Street slip infill public realm ©DTAH 5

Conclusions & Next Steps

36 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Conclusions

The construction of the USQQL is a critical • The concept design and evaluation next step in supporting the continued growth phase of the project involved the design of Toronto’s waterfront. Already, development of the two technology options to a level in the East Bayfront is proceeding without suitable for the development of the AACE the higher-order transit needed to provide Class 4 cost estimate. Both options would improved accessibility to major assets and be designed to the latest standards, have regional destinations; most significantly, to a high-quality fit and finish, and provide a Union Station. connection below the streetcar tracks at Based on each phase of the project, the Queens Quay Station to the Jack Layton following was concluded: Ferry Terminal. The streetcar option would require more significant works at Union • The review of previous studies and Station while the APM option would require background materials concluded that more significant works at Queens Quay the Bay Street corridor is intensely Station. Both options had very similar constrained due to a narrow right of way capital and operating costs. A user and numerous developments planned and experience assessment on the concept under construction on either side of the designs concluded that both options would corridor. The existing rail viaduct directly improve the overall user experience in south of the existing streetcar loop poses the corridor. The APM was preferred for the most significant challenge to the one-stop trips in the Bay Street corridor construction of the expanded streetcar loop due to faster travel to Queens Quay and due to its large piers and strict construction would serve a higher volume of riders in tolerances. this corridor but would introduce a transfer for those going east or west along the • The options development phase of the waterfront. The streetcar was preferred project defined the preliminary evaluation for medium- and long-distance trips criteria which were used to determine and would be more accessible for riders a shortlist of two preferred options. The due to no transfer required at Queens criteria were based on a modified version Quay Station for those continuing east or of the City of Toronto’s Rapid Transit west along the waterfront. A transportation Evaluation Framework which is designed assessment concluded that both options to compare transit options at a high level. would require a similar number of streetcars This phase concluded that of eight initial to serve future demand, despite less options, the two technology options to serve streetcar track under the APM option. In the USQQL were (1) a modification of the addition, the streetcar loop expansion existing streetcar loop at Union Station would provide superior service planning to accommodate additional streetcars, opportunities for the TTC and allow for similar to the EA-approved option, or (2) the a more seamless Waterfront Transit repurposing of the streetcar tunnel and Network. As a result of these assessments the introduction of a new APM connecting on the concept design, it was determined Union Station to streetcar along Queens that streetcar was the preliminary preferred Quay. Surface streetcar at Queens option to serve the Union Station – Queens Quay and Bay was removed from Quay Transit Link. consideration for various passenger safety and transportation operations reasons.

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 37 • Public consultation over the course of the study indicated overwhelming public support for the streetcar option during both Stakeholder Advisory Council sessions and the Public Information Centre.

Overall, the streetcar option was found to better serve the city by supporting the buildout of the Waterfront Transit Network with a flexible terminal at Union Station. From a user experience and transportation operations perspective, the streetcar option is the most effective technology for providing transit to the East Bayfront, Central Waterfront, and beyond.

Given the scope of the Study, it was not possible to address all comments and thoughts raised during the Study. As such, a list of potential next steps has been prepared to help inform subsequent phases of work.

38 City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 Next Steps

The expansion of the Waterfront Transit that may be installed to accommodate Network in Toronto relies on the successful pedestrian flow. implementation of the USQQL. In the next • The closure and reinstating of the teamways phases of this important project, the following will require significant consideration, with considerations should be had: attention paid to appropriate connections • Approval to proceed from City Council and between station areas and the teamways, funds must be secured before proceeding to and allowances for reinstating the teamways the next phases of work. to a high level of fit and finish, including • Comments from the Design Review Panel retail areas. should be incorporated into the design. • The service plan should be further refined. Additional architectural studies should be undertaken to create a design suitable for the gateway to the waterfront. • A review of the project’s Initial Business Case and consideration for the next Business Case requirements to support the delivery of the project are required. • A potential EA Addendum may be required given the refinements to the station configurations at the north and south ends of the link, and possible relocation of the new streetcar portal to west of Yonge Street. As part of the discussion on relocating the portal west of Yonge Street, discussions should be advanced with the Westin Harbour Castle and adjacent stakeholders, e.g. Pier 27 condominiums. • The design should be advanced to at least the 30% stage and updated cost estimates prepared to the AACE-3 or CIQS-C level, fully assessing risks with construction. • Consider splitting work packages per the Initial Business Case Deliverability & Operations Case to advance the project appropriately. • A review of delivery options with funding partners should be undertaken. • An assessment of the impacts to pedestrian circulation and access during construction should be undertaken using pedestrian simulation software. This includes an evaluation of potential temporary works

City of Toronto | Union Station - Queens Quay Link Study | March 2019 39